In defense of freedom
By Lady Liberty
web posted September 26, 2005
Guns are good and terrible things. Whether they are good or
terrible depends on whether the hands that wield them are good
or evil. Guns can, of course, be a lot of fun if they're used for
target shooting or hunting. They can also be — and often are —
lifesavers in the event of a threat. Since self-defense may be the
single most basic of all the human rights, that's a whole lot of
good going on! The obvious good of protecting yourself and
your loved ones from harm is so integral to all of us and to
society as a whole that even the drastic action of killing another
human being can be excused under the law as "justifiable"
homicide, or, more simply and accurately, "self-defense."
The Second Amendment — which guarantees Americans the
right to keep and bear arms — exists because the founding
fathers were also concerned with our ability to defend ourselves.
They, of course, worried a little less about other men than they
did about the government. But their recognition of self-defense,
whether or person, property, or liberty, was clear when they
wrote the words, and their intent remains clear to this day
(despite some lawyers and victim disarmament advocates who
would have you believe otherwise).
Self-defense is instituted under the most scary and serious of
circumstances, and it's imperative that we continue to have the
option to exercise that right as we judge necessary.
Unfortunately, that goes double for any situation where deadly
force is required to defend ourselves. But to feel safe and to stay
safe, it's imperative that we continue to be able to exercise our
right to self defense without fear of legal repercussions. That
includes being able to claim self-defense as a defense should any
charges be wrongly levied against us.
The respect we all ought to have for both the option of defending
ourselves and for the legal standing of self-defense is undermined
when both or either are sorely misused. Rarely has it been more
misused than in the case of Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang.
Last November, Vang was confronted after trespassing —
intentionally or accidentally — onto private property while he
was deer hunting in Wisconsin. Vang claimed the white hunters
who caught him in their deer stand called him racist names and
shot at him. The surviving hunters said that Vang started shooting
first and that, when he was done, six men were dead.
Vang, who admitted to shooting the men, told a judge and jury
that two of the six had deserved to die for calling him names. He
claimed that he'd feared for his life and had fired in self defense.
Prosecutors pointed out that four of the six men who died were
shot in the back while they were trying to run away, and that all
but one of the eight who were shot were unarmed. After a
surprisingly brief trial, a jury in Wisconsin took just three hours to
render guilty verdicts on first degree murder and attempted
murder charges filed against Chai Soua Vang.
That the jury didn't buy Vang's claims of self-defense is a good
thing, but that he used it at all is bound to have repercussions. In
fact, some are already evident. Just after the jury verdicts were
announced, a Hmong man being interviewed by WCCO Radio
in Minneapolis suggested that other Hmong hunters would
continue to enjoy their sport, but that they'd likely be even more
heavily armed than before. It was his contention that doing so
might discourage racism. Whether any have suffered racist
comments or not, it's apparent that some seem to think deadly
force is an appropriate way to combat offensive comments.
Vang's earnest claims can only have contributed to that notion.
Meanwhile, there's significant legal trouble for a man who killed
an intruder in what he believed — and a jury agreed — was a
legitimate case of self defense. After he was acquitted, Alfred
Cook was sued for wrongful death by the dead man's family. His
insurance company refused pay for his defense arguing that self
defense was a purposeful action rather than an accident such as
the insurance would legitimately cover. In the strictest sense, it's
obvious that Cook was, indeed, responsible for the death of the
man he shot. But if the self defense was legitimate, how could
such a death be wrongful?
After an appeal of the insurance company's decision was filed, a
split appellate court ruled in favor of the insurance company. The
insurance company does have a valid point in its argument. The
problem really lies in the failure of the civil court to recognize self
defense like the criminal court does. That is a discrepancy that
will likely need to be resolved in this age of litigiousness. If it's
not, the exercise of self defense, while remaining entirely
legitimate under the law, could potentially result in significant
damages to someone who acted well within his or her moral and
legal rights.
If there was ever a place where self defense was important, and
where guns were a necessity to do so, it was the city of New
Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Gangs stalked the
streets there, looting from abandoned homes and businesses at
will. Snipers took potshots at cops, rescue workers, and
probably each other.
In the middle of the chaos, there were ordinary law abiding
citizens. Many were homeowners who chose to ride out the
storm and came through the other side largely in one piece. By
virtue of high ground, they were also unscathed by the ensuing
floodwaters. But when police either deserted their posts or were
otherwise occupied with emergencies and rescue efforts, the real
threat came from the well armed and exceedingly dangerous
criminal element. Some had the very good sense to band
together for mutual defense. But when others thought of arming
themselves, they found it was too late: Wal-Mart was refusing to
sell guns in its stores in the affected areas.
In the end, it very nearly didn't matter whether the homeowners
could buy guns or not, or whether or not they'd set up their own
patrols and means of ensuring their safety. On the orders of the
New Orleans Superintendent of Police, authorities went door to
door collecting firearms, sometimes by force. Edwin Compass
was even quoted in the New York Times as saying that "only
law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Compass
ignored the obvious, but political columnists didn't. One article
quoted John Lott, an expert on firearms laws and gun control, as
saying that the confiscations would "create more victims."
And so in the course of just a few weeks in America, we see the
notion of self defense ridiculed via an absurd criminal defense.
We see it counterbalanced via the misuse of the civil courts to
address matters criminal courts have already decided. We see it
seriously mitigated by an unwarranted but politically correct
decision made by a vendor of firearms. And most heinous of all,
we see it prohibited altogether by overzealous and power drunk
law enforcement.
At this moment, these incidences are isolated occurrences. But
each is, in its own way, a precedent-setter. There are those
Hmong in Minnesota who are accusing the jury of racism in the
Vang verdicts and who call the murderer himself heroic — or at
least tragic. The family of the man killed during a break-in may or
may not win any compensation in the end, but the acceptance of
the case in the courts and the refusal of an insurance carrier to
consider covering any liabilities isn't heartening. While vendors
have every right to decide what to sell or not to sell, making
decisions to withdraw firearms from sale based solely on
temporary politically correct pressure doesn't bode well for the
fortitude of other businesses.
Most awful of all, there are those who actually think that New
Orleans' Edward Compass had to confiscate firearms from law
abiding citizens to lower the out-of-control crime in the ruined
city. (An acquaintance of mine was actually incensed that I had a
problem with the confiscations, saying, "Well, people were
shooting at the cops. They had to do something!") And those
same people who think removing citizens' only means of self
defense at a time of very real threat to their lives and their
property aren't going to focus on New Orleans forever. In fact,
they're more likely to set their sites on somewhere just a little less
dangerous, at least in the beginning. Consider that carefully the
next time you're inclined to keep quiet because you don't live in
New Orleans yourself!
The right to self defense isn't granted by the Second
Amendment. That right existed long before the Bill of Rights was
crafted, and it will exist long after the Bill of Rights is distant
history. But that certainly doesn't mean the protections against
government attempts to usurp or prohibit that right aren't
important! And we should be warned that the usurpation is well
under way.
Infringements of the Second Amendment have become so
commonplace that even the egregious violations of the law that
took place in New Orleans recently have been overlooked,
excused, or — worst of all — applauded. Manipulations of the
legal system such as the attempt by Chai Vang are largely
viewed as desperate today, but the government has made steady
inroads in the criminalization of racist comment in recent years.
How long before a deadly response might actually be deemed, if
not acceptable, at least understandable? From civil suits to
erstwhile "do-gooders," the right to an effective self-defense is
under attack. If we don't act now to defend ourselves against
these incursions, we may find ourselves largely incapable of
defending ourselves against anything else.
Lady Liberty is a graphic designer and pro-freedom activist
currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other
political and educational information is available on her web site,
Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House, at
http://www.ladylibrty.com. E-mail Lady Liberty at
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com